Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A statute cannot eliminate the intent and understanding of the Constitution's Framers.
Exactly. The intent of the "natural born citizen" clause was to eliminate the possibility of foreigners occupying the federal government's administration, and our country's military. Those born with foreign citizenship are NOT "natural born citizens."
There are SCOTUS references to "natural born citizens."
Two, to start:
Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States to a father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage
Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.
Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that those born in the U.S. to transient aliens weren't even U.S. citizens at birth at all. In 1857, New York had a code that declared all those born in the state to be citizens except, "the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc." And after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the District of Columbia, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted similar citizenship law language as New York. The states could enact such laws because "transient aliens" were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Connecticut adopted a law that stated, "All persons born in this State...except aliens... are and shall be deemed to be citizens”
State laws such as those were not unConstitutional for the simple reason that they only deny citizenship to those born whom another sovereign claims as its own. To be clear, denial of citizenship to those born owing allegiance to another sovereign conforms with the Constitution. NONE of those state laws were ever stricken by SCOTUS for excluding from citizenship those who owed allegiance to another sovereign.
No one asked for your opinion. You claimed the law defined "natural born citizen." Quote that law word for word and post the link, or prove yourself to be a liar.
I was hoping after a couple hour break and an olive branch just asking what you think would get back to the topic. Then I thought maybe you wouldn't be as whacked out as your sidekick.
This forum is for opinions. Final interpretation is done only by the Supreme Court and you of course have nothing from that level.
I do not take orders from someone that thinks debate is calling people names. You can do that all you want. It matters not to me.
You have shown you are not interested in debate so I will put the popcorn down. As far as opinion versus fact, I will say this:
Until a law is tested and agreed upon by multiple appellate courts it is not settled law. Any interpretation of unsettled law by a layman is an opinion. If multiple state supreme courts do not agree, or if a state supreme court does not agree with a federal appellate court, or if two federal appeallate courts do not agree then it goes to the Supreme Court of the United States. Only then can we be sure of something being an absolute at least until the Supreme Law is changed.
That's the way it works. The only difference between me and you (as far as logic goes not of decorum because you have none) is that you rely on only things that agree with you ahead of time. I can provide unbiased links to documents and cases that support what I am saying and you cannot. You have no caselaw to back you up and all of your "research" is bias.
I was prepared to answer your questions and have a couple for you but I'm not going to while being attacked.
The distinction is between "natural born" citizens and citizens, not "natural" born citizens and "born" citizens
Some citizens are born citizens, but not natural born citizens. No naturalized citizens are natural born citizens.
SCOTUS declared Wong Kim Ark "a citizen" at birth because he was born in the U.S. to parents who were permanently doiciled in the U.S. at the time. However, SCOTUS never referred to Ark as a "natural born citizen."
In direct contrast...
Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States to a father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage
Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.
Since the US Constitution recognizes only two classes of citizen (naturalized and natural born) the website he posted was adequate for his purpose.
I do like the idea of discussing this rationally so I will make some comments here.
The statute mentioned is dismissed by the bithers because it does not use the exact words in the Constitution. I already admitted that and stated that this has been a thorn in Congresses side. However, take a closer look at the genesis here:
This is the statute:
8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
It talks about:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
etc.
Why would section (a) exist if it wasn't for the reason to clear up what "natural born citizen is" even though (unfortunately) that exact phrase isn't used? What is the purpose of this statute if it isn't defining naturalized ? Wait, am I saying it's defining naturalized? No. That's impossible. Section (a) cannot be used with naturalized. So why is it there? Is it just to take up space? Was it created randomly by a bored congress?
Then back up. What is higher than the statute:
8 USC Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
How one be a national citizen at birth not a be natural born citizen? Like you said there isn't a third class of citizen especially one created at birth.
I'd really like to hear what the otherside thinks but without the attacks.
Obama can’t be a "natural born citizen" because he had (admittedly) British citizenship at birth. So did the (majority… perhaps 100%?) founders of our country. They, too, were British citizens at birth… and they knew that they would not fit the NBC requirement. So… they grandfathered themselves in by a simple 'or' statement in the Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
